RE: EOT & DMCA concerns

Would the name EOT-Neue or something similar alleviate your concern? Support for a new version of something doesn't imply any obligation to support older one.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of Håkon Wium Lie
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:35 PM
> To: Tab Atkins Jr.
> Cc: Håkon Wium Lie; Thomas Lord; Thomas Phinney; John Hudson; www-
> Subject: Re: EOT & DMCA concerns
> Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:
>  > > This is a real concern. By accepting EOTL (and not EOTC) browser
>  > > vendors accept to ship an inferior product.
>  >
>  > Only in the sense that you are currently shipping an inferior
> product,
>  > and will continue to do so.  I don't think Opera considers itself
>  > inferior for not shipping EOT.
> Things change if you start supporting a "lite" version of a standards.
> People will expect you to soon start supporting the "full" standard.
>  > > Microsoft marketing would
>  > > quickly claim that only they "fully support EOT".
>  >
>  > That's claimable *right now*.
> Again, the comparison changes if competitors start supporting the
> "lite" version, thereby seemingly acknowleding that the standard is
> a good idea.
> I don't think "EOT Lite" is such a good idea. I don't *any* standard
> should have the word "lite" in it:
>   We begin with the name.  The members of the Rapporteur Group strongly
>   prefer "DSSSL Core" over "DSSSL Lite" as the name of the mandatory
>   subset of DSSSL, for two reasons.  First, "Lite" is the well-known
>   name of a particularly insipid brand of beer; and second, the term
>   "DSSSL Lite" suggests incorrectly that what is being referred to is a
>   standard parallel to and separate from DSSSL itself.  This discussion
>   is not about the establishment of a separate standard but rather
> about
>   the definition of a conformance level of DSSSL.
> Cheers,
> -h&kon
>               Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:59:06 UTC